blog

Contamination Rampant in Meat Processing Plants

January 14, 2015

What do pharmaceuticals, automobiles, reusable plastic water bottles, and roller coasters have in common? All are manufactured or operated under conditions that are inadequately regulated by the federal government, whose job it is to protect consumers from corporations valuing their bottom lines above individuals’ safety. As theNew York Times reported in mid-December, we may now add meat production to this list, too, since at least one “meatpacking firm produces as much as two tons a day of pork contaminated by fecal matter, urine, bile, hair, intestinal contents, or diseased tissue[.]”

The Times article explains that the current inspection program, called Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), dates back to 1993, “when more than 500 American were made sick by E. coli traced to tainted hamburgers.” The American Meat Institute then rolled out in 2004 a microbiological method for ensuring the safety of its products that relied very heavily on meatpackers themselves: “the USDA would be relegated to spot-checking selected carcasses.” This allowed Hormel, one of the largest meat producers in the country, to ramp up their operations from about 7,000 hogs per shift to close to 11,000.

It became clear even to Hormel’s own quality-assurance employees that this new method was not effective enough. Following USDA rules, government regulators must “manually check the glands in the head of every hog, palpate the lymph nodes to check for tuberculosis nodules, feel the intestines for parasites, and the kidneys for signs of inflammation or hidden masses.” However, one former Hormel employee reported that production moved so quickly that he was doubtful the lone USDA inspector on site could do more than a brief visual check. Users of the new computerized system claim that from 2011 to 2013 the system failed so many times that they sent “at least 100 million pounds of uninspected meat to market.”

Only a year ago, the USDA released a report revealing that compliance with federal guidelines was so rare that three of the five plants that took part in the inspection program were among the nation’s ten worst (out of over 600 plants in the country). In a follow-up report, a USDA deputy administrator wrote that from 2006 to 2010 the rate of fecal contamination was “consistently higher” and “often much higher” than in plants using the old manual inspection method.

With the new system in place in a number of facilities, figures leveled out around five to seven contaminated hogs for every 10,000 processed. The article points out that though this might sound low, the overall numbers are so high that this may amount to as much as two tons: “it means that an operation the size of Hormel’s would ‘approve’ about 4,000 pounds of contaminated pork a day.”

What is perhaps most troubling about this whole inspection program is that it failed to collect data from plants not using the computerized system. This means that we have no comparable data that might indicate conclusively which method is more effective. Corporations that are left to police the safety of their own products have shown time and time again that they do not have the health and wellbeing of their customers in mind. It is unconscionable that the very food we eat–despite bearing a USDA approval tag–may have never been checked for dangerous contaminants. Since food is considered a “product” under the law, injuries or harm caused by it could potentially give rise to a negligence claim or even a product liability claim. Since regulators have failed to protect individuals, it may be left to attorneys and their clients to ensure the safety of our food and the elimination of as much contamination as possible.

Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP attorneys are licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. In addition, our attorneys practice in other states on a pro hac vice basis. Pro hac vice admission is when a lawyer not licensed in a particular state associates with a lawyer who is licensed in that state and obtains the court’s permission to jointly represent a client in a specific matter.

Our website, like many others, uses small files called cookies to help us customize your experience.

To learn more about the cookies our website is using or to switch them off, go to the cookies settings page. To review our privacy policy click here.

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. To find out more about the cookies we use, see our Privacy Policy.

You can adjust all of your cookie settings by navigating the tabs on the left hand side.

If you decline, your information won’t be tracked when you visit this website. A single cookie will be used in your browser to remember your preference not to be tracked.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.